T206 Question ?

[steve B]

Topps has done that with some of the recent sets, and they are just considered as inserts, sort of part of the regular set.

While The T206 brands could all be individual sets, Burdick didn't catalog them that way. Probably because it was assumed all the fronts came with all the backs with only a handful of exceptions.

I don't have a t213 type 1, but aren't they thinner than the T206s? Between that and probably not quite figuring out the years of type 2 and type 3 I can see why those were thought of as different.

T215, I think was issued (Or not?) By a company that was not part of the same company that issued T206, so again a difference that would have put them as being different despite having the same fronts. Of course, they were probably also intended for a non-US distribution, so should have been classed as foreign cards instead of under the T designation.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by steve B

Topps has done that with some of the recent sets, and they are just considered as inserts, sort of part of the regular set.

While The T206 brands could all be individual sets, Burdick didn't catalog them that way. Probably because it was assumed all the fronts came with all the backs with only a handful of exceptions.

I don't have a t213 type 1, but aren't they thinner than the T206s? Between that and probably not quite figuring out the years of type 2 and type 3 I can see why those were thought of as different.

T215, I think was issued (Or not?) By a company that was not part of the same company that issued T206, so again a difference that would have put them as being different despite having the same fronts. Of course, they were probably also intended for a non-US distribution, so should have been classed as foreign cards instead of under the T designation.

T213 Type-1s are so thin that they feel like they're paper rather that cardboard. Ted Z. can explain this in much more detail.

[packs]

There are other sets with similar compilations too. The Ramly set is one example. There isn't a catalog differentiation between the Ramly cards and the TTT cards. Not really any distinction in the M101 set either, aside from numbering the types under the same umbrella (like if Sovereigns were T206-3).

[buymycards]

The problem with using the thin paper of the Type 1 Coupon's as a reason to exclude it from the T206 set doesn't hold water. What about American Beauty, which are narrower than other T206's. Should they also be excluded?

We have discussed this on the board many, many times. The reason for the T206 set being defined the way it is, is that one person, many years ago, with very limited information, made this decision. I am in awe of the work that Burdick did in regard to cataloging the sets, but in some cases, new information has come to light that Burdick wasn't aware of.

Rick

[bounce]

Originally Posted by buymycards

We have discussed this on the board many, many times.

Coupons are not just different because of paper, there are other differences including font/color of the names, etc. They are not the same as T206 on the front, however they are very similar.

Ty Cobb backs are always debated, most "purists" I think feel those cards are not really part of T206 because there's zero evidence they were ever issued in packs or tins. Lots of various theories on them, but that's one that IS normally included as T206 despite lots of reasons not to be.

Agree that ultimately the cataloging that was originally done stuck, and it's not likely changing any time soon.

[buymycards]

The Type I Coupon has the same color font as a T206. How is this different than a T206?

[Rhotchkiss]

Personally, I think both t213-1 and t215-1 should be t206s. They both have same pics and names, in black, on front, and we’re issued between 1909-11. Not sure when the Cobb back was issued, but it too has same front and black writing, so I am fine with it being considered a t206.

T213-2/3, t214, and t215-2 were issued after 1911 and have the blue writing on front. No way these are t206s

[rats60]

Originally Posted by buymycards

The problem with using the thin paper of the Type 1 Coupon's as a reason to exclude it from the T206 set doesn't hold water. What about American Beauty, which are narrower than other T206's. Should they also be excluded?

We have discussed this on the board many, many times. The reason for the T206 set being defined the way it is, is that one person, many years ago, with very limited information, made this decision. I am in awe of the work that Burdick did in regard to cataloging the sets, but in some cases, new information has come to light that Burdick wasn't aware of.

Rick

The paper is the issue. E90-1 cards share the same fronts with other caramel issues and a tobacco issue. It isn't an issue that they are catalogued as different sets. In the 90s, I collected basketball cards because of Michael Jordan. I would never dream of putting a Topps card in a Topps Chrome set. The cards are nothing alike except for using the same picture. It is the same with t206 and Coupon Type 1. They aren't the same cards, they aren't the same set. I would never buy a coupon card to fill a hole in my t206 set.

You make a good point on the American Beauty cards. I noticed that when I started collecting t206 35 years ago and I deliberately avoided buying any of those cards for my set. If there is any change to be made with the backs in the set, in my opinion it should be excluding the card backs that are not like the others, American Beauty and Ty Cobb, not adding more backs that have little in common with t206. I have no problem leaving them as is, it is Burdick's work not ours.

[sreader3]

For anyone interested, I have posted some thoughts on this topic here:

http://www.t206insider.com/store/c1/insider#research/

Cheers.

Scot

[RCMcKenzie]

Nice article on T206, Scot, I enjoyed reading it. I'm fine with the nomenclature remaining, but as a back collector, I go by the backs for all cards, T205, T206, T207, T213, T216, T218, T219...

If I find a T218 Tolstoi, I put it in a separate box from my T218 Mecca etc...When TedZ lines up all the backs to show the same design, either they are all together, or all separate. I'm fine with separate. I don't even go by the fronts in t216, I group them by the 5 backs. T216 are 5 different sets to me. It's a fun discussion. The only Latin I know is tempus fugit...Rob

I'm fine with just letting it be.